After posting the piece about Nurses traveling to Germany and reading the feedback. I would like to open up a debate on this BB about "Universal Health Care" or "Single Payor Systems"
In doing this I hope to learn more about each side of the issue. I do not want to turn this into a heated horrific debate that ends in belittling one another as some other charged topics have ended, but a genuine debate about the Pros and Cons of proposed "Universal Health Care or Single Payor systems" I believe we can all agree to debate and we can all learn things we might not otherwise have the time to research.
I am going to begin by placing an article that discusses the cons of Universal Health Care with some statistics, and if anyone is willing please come in and try to debate some of the key points this brings up. With stats not hyped up words or hot air. I am truly interested in seeing the different sides of this issue. This effects us all, and in order to make an informed decision we need to see "all" sides of the issue. Thanks in advance for participating.
Michele
I am going to have to post the article in several pieces because the bulletin board only will allow 3000 characters.So see the next posts.
Thank you Zashagalka/Timothy for your assistance. The way most of the ppl in Australia look at it is this: "we pay taxes, which are earmarked specifically for health care, therefore we should have the choice to go public (govt provided) or private".
1. We pay a percentage in our tax for "Medicare" - those who are not in a fund pay double the amount that those in a private fund pay. So therefore we do still pay for our health care.
2. Most of the big public hospitals are teaching hospitals and are linked with universities; many of them have been involved in pioneering medical healing and procedures
3. Good nursing care is also provided, of course! All hospitals in Australia, whether public or private, have to be "accredited", and this means showing evidence of research as well as acceptable qualified hands on care.
I know in the town where I live, I'd actually prefer to go public.
Thank you Zashagalka/Timothy for your assistance. The way most of the ppl in Australia look at it is this: "we pay taxes, which are earmarked specifically for health care, therefore we should have the choice to go public (govt provided) or private".
1. We pay a percentage in our tax for "Medicare" - those who are not in a fund pay double the amount that those in a private fund pay. So therefore we do still pay for our health care.
2. Most of the big public hospitals are teaching hospitals and are linked with universities; many of them have been involved in pioneering medical healing and procedures
3. Good nursing care is also provided, of course! All hospitals in Australia, whether public or private, have to be "accredited", and this means showing evidence of research as well as acceptable qualified hands on care.
I know in the town where I live, I'd actually prefer to go public.
WELL! I think its interesting that this Australian nurse PREFERS PUBLIC healthcare.
Is there something I have said wrong? I have to be quite honest, I do work in the public health care system, but have worked in private as well. My experience may not match those of others over here. So maybe I am biased. I appreciate those who have helped me to understand the US system, and have tried to follow the discussion here. Private care here is also excellent, many of the specialists in my area work there as well, while some prefer to concentrate just in that hospital. I was simply stating that we are lucky in that we have choice between the two systems.
Unfortunately my knowledge of the US system, as I have demonstrated, is limited. So please, if I have offended anyone, it was unintended.
Is there something I have said wrong? I have to be quite honest, I do work in the public health care system, but have worked in private as well. My experience may not match those of others over here. So maybe I am biased. I appreciate those who have helped me to understand the US system, and have tried to follow the discussion here. Private care here is also excellent, many of the specialists in my area work there as well, while some prefer to concentrate just in that hospital. I was simply stating that we are lucky in that we have choice between the two systems.
Unfortunately my knowledge of the US system, as I have demonstrated, is limited. So please, if I have offended anyone, it was unintended.
No, you're fine. I don't think anybody was offended.
Is there something I have said wrong? I have to be quite honest, I do work in the public health care system, but have worked in private as well. My experience may not match those of others over here. So maybe I am biased. I appreciate those who have helped me to understand the US system, and have tried to follow the discussion here. Private care here is also excellent, many of the specialists in my area work there as well, while some prefer to concentrate just in that hospital. I was simply stating that we are lucky in that we have choice between the two systems.
Unfortunately my knowledge of the US system, as I have demonstrated, is limited. So please, if I have offended anyone, it was unintended.
No, Tiwi , you didnt say anything wrong at all, on the contrary, you said something RIGHT! It is wonderful to hear from a nurse that lives and works in a country that has what we call universal healthcare(public). There are many of us that would like to see our country adopt a system similar to yours. Thankyou for your input, if you have any nurse friends who post on this forum, I would invite them to share their opinions on your Australian healthcare system, good OR bad.
Take back our country. All the elected reps get "single payer plan". If it is good enuf for them, it is good enuf!!!
:yeahthat:
That would be a true free market system. If we had that I'd be against Universal Health care. If we had a true free market system with no insurance companies, no lawyers, and very little or no government involvement well than healthcare would be more available and affordale for all. It would also wake up the pharmeceutical companies and they would have to rethink their overcharging ways.
In Health Care Reform Debate, Single-Payer System is Labor’s Only Clear Choice
Under single-payer, you don’t face the loss of health benefits if you lose your job or are forced out on strike. You don’t face employers constantly shifting costs onto your back. You don’t have to worry about retiree health care if you are able to retire before age 65. And you are no longer at the mercy of the insurance industry predators who routinely deny care.
NOT A DREAM
Single-payer is not a dream. It’s legislation—House Resolution 676, introduced by Congressmen John Conyers and Dennis Kucinich, with dozens of co-authors….
…Does single-payer work? Every industrialized nation in the world except the U.S. has either a single-payer system, like Medicare, or a national health system, like our veterans health system.
That’s why the U.S. stumbles along at 37th in the world in overall health care quality, according to the World Health Organization.
Under single-payer, all health care revenues go into one publicly administered pool of money that pays for all medically necessary services delivered by doctors, hospitals, and other providers.
Its guiding principles are:
• Universality: Everybody in, nobody out.
• Portability: Even if you lose your job or never had one, you still have health coverage, guaranteed.
• Comprehensive, uniform benefits: No Cadillac plans for the wealthy, no tricycle plans—with high deductibles, limited services, and caps on coverage—for everyone else.
• Choice of physician, hospital, clinic, and other caregivers: Most private plans restrict where you can go.
• Cost controls and cost savings: 30 percent of every dollar that currently goes to insurance companies pays for their administrative costs—and their profits. Under single-payer, savings accrue from eliminating this overhead.
• Public oversight: The public sets policies and administers the system, instead of high-priced CEOs meeting in secret and making decisions based on what inflates their compensation packages or company profits….
In Health Care Reform Debate, Single-Payer System is Labor's Only Clear Choice
Under single-payer, you don't face the loss of health benefits if you lose your job or are forced out on strike. You don't face employers constantly shifting costs onto your back. You don't have to worry about retiree health care if you are able to retire before age 65. And you are no longer at the mercy of the insurance industry predators who routinely deny care.
NOT A DREAM
Single-payer is not a dream. It's legislation--House Resolution 676, introduced by Congressmen John Conyers and Dennis Kucinich, with dozens of co-authors....
...Does single-payer work? Every industrialized nation in the world except the U.S. has either a single-payer system, like Medicare, or a national health system, like our veterans health system.
That's why the U.S. stumbles along at 37th in the world in overall health care quality, according to the World Health Organization.
Under single-payer, all health care revenues go into one publicly administered pool of money that pays for all medically necessary services delivered by doctors, hospitals, and other providers.
Its guiding principles are:
* Universality: Everybody in, nobody out.
* Portability: Even if you lose your job or never had one, you still have health coverage, guaranteed.
* Comprehensive, uniform benefits: No Cadillac plans for the wealthy, no tricycle plans--with high deductibles, limited services, and caps on coverage--for everyone else.
* Choice of physician, hospital, clinic, and other caregivers: Most private plans restrict where you can go.
* Cost controls and cost savings: 30 percent of every dollar that currently goes to insurance companies pays for their administrative costs--and their profits. Under single-payer, savings accrue from eliminating this overhead.
* Public oversight: The public sets policies and administers the system, instead of high-priced CEOs meeting in secret and making decisions based on what inflates their compensation packages or company profits....
What a bad idea. I applaud the sentiments involved, but the execution will not work as promised. Socialism just doesn't work. It never has. When you remove incentive from human motivations, you fundamentally warp that motivation.
Look at global warming - it's lead spokesman, Al Gore, uses 20X the home energy of the average American. However high-browed his ideas, his personal motivations are far different. As are all people. You cannot get people self-motivated when you remove personal incentive. It can't be done. Al Gore is the perfect example of why. If the most strident energy conservation voice cannot contain his own energy use, then how can you possibly expect that the masses will be motivated to make a national health plan work, despite personal incentive?
In any case, the current bill, that both you and NrsKaren have referenced, is DOA. No Congress is going to spend the time and energy to shape a bill like this that will be destined for a VETO.
This is an issue that will be put on hold until, at a minimum, after the '08 election and into '09.
*I remember my grandma telling me she knew she would get the vote and worked for it in Texas. She voted for the first time in 1921.
*I remember separate drinking fountains for "colored". We were told to go incremental because America wasn't ready for integration. Many of us continued and the Civil Rights Law was passed and signed.
*We were told it would be impossible to get safe staffing ratios into the law. We have them as the minimum with the requirement to staff up acording to the acuity of each patient.
*I pray and attend church even though sins are committed every day. I sin and pray for forgiveness. I think it would be a sin for me to just give up on people just because we are not perfect. We need to try to encourage our best. Not expect the worst.
* I think some day the good people of the United States will join the modern world and find it in our hearts to have healthcare for all. The people of Japan, Europe, Australia, and other countries with healthcare for all ar not more lazy than we are.
I do not believe that we Americans would just do nothing if ensured access to healthcare.
Healthy people are more productive. Americans are not more lazy than people in other industrialized countries.
first presumption: what you earn is not yours. it is community property that we are allowing you to use until such time as we find other uses for it. what you earn is a bank account that "we" may draw upon to provide for those less fortunate than you. you have a responsibility to provide all the goods and services for those who cannot afford them as well as you can. if that has a negative impact on your life, tough.
second presumption: there are those who can afford services, and those who cannot. it is the responsibility of those who can afford the services to pay for those who cannot. if, in providing those services to the "less fortunate," the higher earners must limit what they can provide for their own families, too bad. they should have had the good sense not to work so hard, and then "others" would be providing for them.
third presumption: the wealthy are greedy leeches. they don’t deserve their wealth. how hard they may have worked to become wealthy is irrelevant. it is wrong for one person to earn more than another, and therefore it is right to tax the higher earners to the point that their actual take home pay is no greater than the poorest among us. since this is true, "we" can take that wealth at will, with no right of redress.
on a personal level, what it has come down to for me is this: i earn a very good living, though i am a long way from rich. i worked very hard to get where i am, and to be able to provide not only the necessities, but also some luxuries for my family. what you are in essence telling me is that my hard work is irrelevant. since not everyone can afford the luxuries i have, you must lessen my ability to provide the support to my own family in order to provide for others.
[edit] "with great power comes great responsibility"
uncle ben parker
1. taxes are the price we pay for living in a civilized society.
2. most proponents of single payer are not asking for more money to be put into health care rather the desire is for the money that is already being spent to be spent more efficiently. (we spend twice as much per capita as france (where everyone is covered) in the us and have 15-20% uninsured with worse outcomes.) we simply cannot continue to spend 31% of our health care dollars on administrative costs. the real point of the single payer debate is that by tying health care to employers we are distorting our economy and placing it at a competitive disadvantage to other nations.
3. the goal of the republican party over the past 100 years has been to concentrate as much wealth as possible into the fewest number of hands. this has played out over the past 30 years in a policy of lowering taxes on the very wealthy while simultaneously transferring more and more costs to the middle class. it is not possible to have a true middle class in america without also having a truly progressive tax system.
although he claims that he can balance the budget by 2012 without raising taxes, bush's 2008 budget calls for increasing taxes on the middle class by $800 billion over the next 10 years. even more audacious is that those higher tax revenues are financing more tax cuts for the wealthy, especially those making over $1 million annually. if bush wants to cut taxes for the super wealthy and balance the budget on the backs of the middle class, he should say so, but he doesn't. he buries the plan in the fine print of his budget.
4. is personal selfishness congruent with the professional nursing value of caring?
1. taxes are the price we pay for living in a civilized society.
2. most proponents of single payer are not asking for more money to be put into health care rather the desire is for the money that is already being spent to be spent more efficiently. (we spend twice as much per capita as france (where everyone is covered) in the us and have 15-20% uninsured with worse outcomes. we simply cannot continue to spend 31% of our health care dollars on administrative costs. the real point of the single payer debate is that by tying health care to employers we are distorting our economy and placing it at a competitive disadvantage to other nations.
3. the goal of the republican party over the past 100 years has been to concentrate as much wealth as possible into the fewest number of hands. this has played out over the past 30 years in a policy of lowering taxes on the very wealthy while simultaneously transferring more and more costs to the middle class. it is not possible to have a true middle class in america without also having a truly progressive tax system.
4. is personal selfishness congruent with the professional nursing value of caring?
the goal of republicans is to aid the most individuals as possible. to say otherwise is useless hyperbole. even kennedy worried that the result of improving the lot of citizens is that it served to make them republican.
and me wanting to keep my money is not selfish. i'm entitled to the fruits of my labor. it's not the government's money, that's the bottom line.
Tiwi
162 Posts
Thank you Zashagalka/Timothy for your assistance. The way most of the ppl in Australia look at it is this: "we pay taxes, which are earmarked specifically for health care, therefore we should have the choice to go public (govt provided) or private".
1. We pay a percentage in our tax for "Medicare" - those who are not in a fund pay double the amount that those in a private fund pay. So therefore we do still pay for our health care.
2. Most of the big public hospitals are teaching hospitals and are linked with universities; many of them have been involved in pioneering medical healing and procedures
3. Good nursing care is also provided, of course! All hospitals in Australia, whether public or private, have to be "accredited", and this means showing evidence of research as well as acceptable qualified hands on care.
I know in the town where I live, I'd actually prefer to go public.